Is it me or a lot of fanboy claim graphic is not important?

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']To be fair, I still think online gaming is not only not important, but it is a detriment to gaming and I've disagreed with all of Nintendo's decisions to move into that space.[/QUOTE]I somewhat agree, since I don't play online a whole lot (prefer single player experience). I'll be perfectly honest that I rarely play Mario Kart DS online, but that more so has to do with the trouble of getting into matches.
[quote name='Roufuss']Not to mention, with online gaming, I can find a game at any time I want, I don't have to schedule a time during the week when everyone can come over and play and hope nobody bails out. If I want to play Gears of War multiplayer at 3 am, awesome, I can.[/QUOTE]But sometimes, you might get stuck with annoying little kids, which has happened to me a lot on XBL, when jumping into a random match.
 
I'm not a fanboy, but graphics don't really matter much--what games have I played most over the past month? Wii Sports and Tecmo Super Bowl, not exactly the pinnacles of graphical excellence. I've been addicted to them because they're FUN.
 
If graphics are so damn important why isn't anyone on Sony's case for their PS3's graphics looking like 360 games or worse in some cases? Oh wait because yeah they will get better over time. How much better? I think 360 games will also continue to look better so I'm thinking the margin won't be all that big. Oh but wait Sony said the next generation starts with them. Oh wait we all NEED the Cell processor because it is going to change everything! Don't forget BLU-RAY! Toy Story here we come.

Why did everyone have a PS2 the system with the least graphical capability? Everyone said the PS2 was so great because of the game library right? Why does it change now that the PS3 will be the most capable system this gen?

We can all bitch Nintendo out for having Cube+ graphics when they said we aren't in the graphics race this gen. So can't we all bitch Sony out for not having Toy Story graphics?

For everyone that complains about Nintendo fanboys running rampant here there sure is a lot of talk about what Nintendo doesn't do right and not as much about what the other companies haven't done right.

I understand people want uber graphics. I can appreciate a great game that looks good. That is why I will buy another system to go along with my Wii. If you ask me though right now the 360 is looking a hell of a lot better than the PS3. Why? What is Sony really giving us? Where is the uber online? Where is the 4D graphics? Where are 120FPS games?
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']
But sometimes, you might get stuck with annoying little kids, which has happened to me a lot on XBL, when jumping into a random match.[/QUOTE]

Then you either a) leave and find a new game or b) find people from a forum / internet place you frequent and play with them.

I take a little from column a, a little from column b, but the whole "annoying little kids" on XBL is an issue i've found to be greatly exaggerated.

But like I said, online is the only way I'll ever get use out of 99% of any game's multiplayer mode, I'd much rather have that than no online at all. I mean, yea, Smash may have some problems if it goes online, but unfortunately I'm not cool enough to have a cadre of friends who will drop everything they are doing to come to my house to play whenever I feel like playing.

Online solves this problem.
 
graphics are important, but should ALWAYS take a back seat to gameplay.

[quote name='Roufuss']

I take a little from column a, a little from column b, but the whole "annoying little kids" on XBL is an issue i've found to be greatly exaggerated.


[/QUOTE]

You need to play more random FPS matches like Halo, or PD0. Hell I heard kids giggle with glee on Gears of War.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']To be fair, I still think online gaming is not only not important, but it is a detriment to gaming and I've disagreed with all of Nintendo's decisions to move into that space.[/quote]


eh it depends on how online gaming evolves. so far most online gaming is focused on fps and mmorpgs but itll be interesting to see if they can create more adventure and action games with online play within a set storyline. like lets say youre playing a re game that if you play the dingle player game alone at home itd be the same game and story for the online portion only you could play it with people. i think they did that with the re outbreak games but i never played those so i dont know how well it worked out.

but yeah for most folks depending on the types of games youre into online gaming is a necessity or an extra nice option.
 
[quote name='jkam']If graphics are so damn important why isn't anyone on Sony's case for their PS3's graphics looking like 360 games or worse in some cases? Oh wait because yeah they will get better over time. How much better? I think 360 games will also continue to look better so I'm thinking the margin won't be all that big. Oh but wait Sony said the next generation starts with them. Oh wait we all NEED the Cell processor because it is going to change everything! Don't forget BLU-RAY! Toy Story here we come.

Why did everyone have a PS2 the system with the least graphical capability? Everyone said the PS2 was so great because of the game library right? Why does it change now that the PS3 will be the most capable system this gen?

We can all bitch Nintendo out for having Cube+ graphics when they said we aren't in the graphics race this gen. So can't we all bitch Sony out for not having Toy Story graphics?

For everyone that complains about Nintendo fanboys running rampant here there sure is a lot of talk about what Nintendo doesn't do right and not as much about what the other companies haven't done right.

I understand people want uber graphics. I can appreciate a great game that looks good. That is why I will buy another system to go along with my Wii. If you ask me though right now the 360 is looking a hell of a lot better than the PS3. Why? What is Sony really giving us? Where is the uber online? Where is the 4D graphics? Where are 120FPS games?
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']You sound like a fanboy right there. You're acting like there's too many Sony fanboys here and a lack of Nintendo fans, when I see the exact opposite here.

Also, which console saw a bigger jump previous generation, throughout its lifecycle, PS2 or Xbox. It's because Sony makes their consoles difficult to develop; therefore, you won't see its power shown for a while. MS makes their consoles easy to develop (where getting power is easy); therefore, the graphics don't improve as much over time.[/QUOTE]

I sound like a fanboy? I never said anything about Sony fanboys. I'm asking why we aren't bashing everything. If we are being 100% objective of all platforms shouldn't we pick apart every system including the PS3 for its shortcomings? Where are my Toy Story graphics? You can bash the Wii for graphics all day long but at least turn around and look at the other consoles and do the same. Nintendo came right out and said they would not be competing in the graphics race. Sony said next-gen starts when the PS3 comes out. Which game proves that exactly? Motorstorm? Resistance? I'm not seeing it. As a proud PSONE and PS2 owner I don't feel bad about not liking the PS3. They need to prove that the extra $100-$200 over a 360 is worth it. Like I said I'm not seeing it.
 
this topic and similar ones always remind me of when tron first came out, people thought it would be the greatest accomplishment in terms of graphics and special effects that we will ever see in our lifetimes.

LOL
 
[quote name='dracula']this topic and similar ones always remind me of when tron first came out, people thought it would be the greatest accomplishment in terms of graphics and special effects that we will ever see in our lifetimes.

LOL[/QUOTE]

"These games are getting really realistic... "

-- Bill Gates, talking about DOOM
Reel Splatter Productions (30 October 1995)
 
[quote name='Pancake Rabbit']Hmmm mace griffin that's quite a pick. How about....oh I don't know....Halo?[/QUOTE]

I don't know, how about because the topic is about gameplay versus graphics? Last I checked Halo's gameplay was up pretty high up there. Mace Griffin? Not so much.
 
I agree that Halo got both awosome graphic at the game and excellent gameplay, that the reason why it was the best selling game on xbox back then. I guess my topic should be is innovative game playe > good graphc.

One thing that need to be point out is that Nintendo DS is selling really well not because it is dual screen, there aren't even many games that must use dual screen. Most of the time it was just used as a map screen. The reason why it sell better than psp is because NDS is basically a more powerful gba with 3d capability. Another thing was the game are designed to be fast, simple and fun to play with while you are on the move. Third of all, it is way cheaper than a psp. People tend to get a bit iffy speading 250+ on a portable gaming while a ps2 is only half the price of the psp.
 
[quote name='Xellos2099']
One thing that need to be point out is that Nintendo DS is selling really well not because it is dual screen, there aren't even many games that must use dual screen. Most of the time it was just used as a map that don't need push a button to use. The reason why it sell better than psp is because NDS is basically a more powerful gba with 3d capability. Another thing was the game are designed to be fast, simple and fun to play with while you are on the move. Third of all, it is way cheaper than a psp. People tend to get a bit iffy speading 250+ on a portable gaming while a ps2 is only half the price of the ps2.[/QUOTE]

Oh god damn.

This is the worst paragraph in the history of this board.
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh god damn.

This is the worst paragraph in the history of this board.[/QUOTE]
:lol:

What? You didn't know the PS2 is only half the price of the PS2?
 
Do graphic matter in Nintendo's top games? No. Is anyone really anxious to see a more realistic Mario or Kirby? Zelda is about the only Nintendo title that I believe any fan cares about graphically. What they truly should say is that "In Nintendo games, graphics don't matter." Now, your Tekkens, Halos, Final Fantasy Umpteeth (Not FF Chronicals or pre FF7 titles), and Gears of War graphics DO matter. But these games just don't appeal to your fanatical "graphics don't matter" Nintendo fan. Much like Mario Galaxy won't appeal to the graphic worshipers who own a PS3 or Xbox360. It's just a fact of life.
 
Graphics are a part of presentation, but to compare an NES game's graphics to a 360's titles is just not fair at all. Complaining should be restricted to the game's timeframe to be subjective. Asteroids definately cannot compare to Halo in the graphics department, but it compares favorably to the 2600 A-Team game.

One can also be more lenient with launch titles. King's Field (0/JP) looks like total horror, but faces less griping from me based on the fact that it was indeed first-gen PS. Its sucessor was leaps ahead and the first game was a learning experience for the devs. Granted when we got the US edition of King's Field there was a total whine-fest over how awful it looked and the lack of faces. It ignored that despite the texture reuse it was a good game... but the limits it struggled with resulted in the player becoming lost all the time.

Tecmo's Deception is a fun title despite its graphical anomalies, but this was acceptable given its timeframe. Any game coming out now for anything other than the DS which looks like it would be shunned to the darkest corners of the world. Despite the creativity it has and the interactive storyline few would accept it as a serious release.

People are SHALLOW. Therefore, good gameplay will usually be overlooked if the graphics are unacceptably bland for the era.
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh god damn.

This is the worst paragraph in the history of this board.[/QUOTE]

I thought his original post was awful. This one though was truly awosome!
 
it's not about fanboyism... i have a 360 i'd have a PS3 if i didn't have a baby on the way (or at least i'd have the intention to get one asap) and i got a wii. It's about the "experience" for lots of gamers reguardless of platform... the wii "experience" is different from the other consoles... if i want to sit on my arse and play a game i'm not going to play the wii, too much effort, if i want to do something more interactive and effortfull i will play the wii... as a nice added note was playing golf w/ hubby and nailed him a good one, hehe, not on purpose.

i believe nintendo knew they had lost the "main stream" market and so they decided unstead of trying to win it back to take a whole new angle and it seams to have worked so far w/ over 600000 units sold and them still flying off the shelves.
 
But is Wii really capability of breaking the "Fourth Wall" on gaming on just a new way of controling how the game is play? Also, isn't Wii suppose to be very similiar, programming wise, to a gamecube? And Wii is suppose to be stronger than a gamecube correct? Than how come farcry for Wii actually look worse than xbox version, a last gen console?
 
[quote name='Xellos2099'] Than how come farcry for Wii actually look worse than xbox version, a last gen console?[/QUOTE]

Because it's a port with shitty non-optimized code.
 
[quote name='Xellos2099']If given the choice, will people play Soul Edge on Ps1 or Soul calibur III on a ps2 [/quote]


I prefer Soul Edge. It has better balance thereby making it a better fighter.

re: Current-gen vs. current-gen

- I'd rather play a FUN 480p game (wii) than a not-fun 1080p game (the others)
-
- My tiny 29 inch tv is too small to show the difference between 480p or 720p. So in this instance: No it doesn't matter.
-
- So gameplay matters more than graphics resolution.
 
... You can see the difference on my TV. I appreciate higher res which can take advantage of my equipment. Granted, I will STILL play my N64. It's just nice to see details that weren't possible before. Let your graphic designers show off!

Why for are 1080p games theorhetically not fun? I like the best of both worlds... a game which looks okay compared to its fellows but has solid gameplay. I'm FUSSY.

Good is subjective. Still, it'd be a different tune it the game were N64-era dithered-to-the-max death polygons. All the ingenious gameplay couldn't make most people overlook the fact it looked rancid. Graphics are a major sell-point for the masses. Good gameplay is not dependant on graphics, but having decent ones doesn't hurt.
 
[quote name='AngstOverlord']Why for are 1080p games theorhetically not fun? [/quote]

Allow me to rephrase:

- I'd rather play a FUN 480p game (Zelda Twilight Princess) than a beautiuful, but not-fun 1080p game (Mary-Kate & Ashley visit the Mall). Gameplay is the most important criteria. (Same principle applies to movies- I enjoy an old movie like Casablanca, despite its primitive effects, far more than the latest Sci-Fi Killer Bug CGI-drek).



And as said before I can't see the difference between a 720p Blu-ray vs. a 480p dvd. My screen size (29) is too small to show tiny details. (Or my eyes are bad? One or the other.)
 
I've been avoiding wireless for a long time. Partly because it costs more money than wired. Partly because it's harder to set up and has much worse security. Partly because it's slower. But also partly because I think there could be a long term health risk to all these radio transmitters in everything-the first time in human history this has ever happened.

Because of all those reasons (and how irritating messing with batteries is) I was really disappointed that all three new systems use wireless controllers. 360 and PS3 can at least operate in a wired mode (though who knows if it actually shuts down the radio in the console).

But besides a Wi-Fi radio, Wii also has a bar constantly emitting infrared radiation. Continuous infrared causes cataracts-I've got no idea if Wii emits enough to do damage over time, but obviously Nintendo doesn't know that either. Since obviously this can't have been studied over decades.

After learning Wii's "sensor bar" is actually an infrared radiation emitter, I'm leaning further towards thinking I'll avoid the system. (That VC games have DRM that ties it to a single console hasn't helped either.)

Anyone else given any thoughts to the long-term health effects of this stuff?
 
That argument is seriously faulted, why should anyone compare one of the best game from the last generation to one of the suckiest and pointless game ever made? By gamer standard it is not even a game.
 
You'll be able to tell a HUGE difference on games on a 27" screen. You can tell a huge difference on a 19" screen. IMO TV and movies don't benefit as much from increased resolution as games. (I still use my 27" SD TV for TV and DVDs, and I'm perfectly happy with it, but it stunk for the PS2, let alone the PS3/360.)
 
[quote name='Xellos2099']That argument is seriously faulted, why should anyone compare one of the best game from the last generation to one of the suckiest and pointless game ever made? By gamer standard it is not even a game.[/quote]


To prove the adage: "It's the gameplay that matters, not the graphics." If it makes you feel better, compare Zelda in 480p vs. Dead or Alive Volleyball in 1080i.

Sure the DOA-V looks better with 6 times as many pixels on the screen, but I sure as hell don't want to play that piece'o'crap.
 
[quote name='Xellos2099']Why are people here insisting game with good graphic will always have sucky gameplay?[/quote]

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying that.

If Zelda was released in 1080i it would be great! But just because Zelda only goes up to 480 doesn't mean I'm going to say "oooh yuck how ugly that is" and boycott the game. The graphics are unimportant vs. the superior gameplay Zelda offers. (Hence the subject.)
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']Strawman argument. Nobody is saying that.

If Zelda was released in 1080i it would be great! But just because Zelda only goes up to 480 doesn't mean I'm going to say "oooh yuck how ugly that is" and boycott the game. The graphics are unimportant vs. the superior gameplay Zelda offers. (Hence the subject.)[/QUOTE]

THAT'S the strawman argument. Zelda would be more fun to play, more immersive if it looked even better.

And graphics are only one of the benefits you get from more power. You can do a lot more types of games and gameplay the more power you've got. Larger game worlds, more physics, more things to interact with, better A.I., etc., etc. Every single generation of systems brings games that wouldn't be possible on the previous generation, regardless of graphics.
 
[quote name='Puppy']And graphics are only one of the benefits you get from more power. You can do a lot more types of games and gameplay the more power you've got. Larger game worlds, more physics, more things to interact with, better A.I., etc., etc. Every single generation of systems brings games that wouldn't be possible on the previous generation, regardless of graphics.[/QUOTE]

That's not really what anyone is talking about, though. Hence the (poorly-phrased) title.
 
Is it me or a lot of fanboy claim graphic is not important?

It's funny how graphics aren't 'all that' (important) when you don't have the most powerful system. Similarly, it's almost as amusing/aggravating to see how those with the most powerful system will fall back on their graphical advantages whenever they need a good crutch.

You can see all this play out with hardcore Xbots, from last gen to this one. Me? Not to sound too much like Freddie Mercury, but "I want it all." And for that, you still can't settle for one console per generation. You probably never will, either.
 
[quote name='Puppy']THAT'S the strawman argument. Zelda would be more fun to play, more immersive if it looked even better.[/quote]

Strongly Disagree. I enjoyed Ocarina of Time more than it's better-looking, higher-resolution sequel majora. Diff? GAMEPLAY was better in the older title.

Gameplay is the single most important thing in games.
(Just as plot is the most important thing in movies.)
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']Strongly Disagree. I enjoyed Ocarina of Time more than it's better-looking, higher-resolution sequel majora. Diff? GAMEPLAY was better in the older title.

Gameplay is the single most important thing in games.
(Just as plot is the most important thing in movies.)[/QUOTE]

Two problems here. One, Majora's Mask didn't look better, it was the same engine and looked the same aside from artistic considerations (and in that regard looked worse IMO).

But more to the point, like I said before
. Zelda would be more fun to play, more immersive if it looked even better.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that gameplay is the most important thing-that's why this whole thing is a strawman argument. What's being disputed is that graphics ARE important, and technology even more so, as it DOES directly affect gameplay.
 
[quote name='Puppy']Two problems here. One, Majora's Mask didn't look better[/quote]
It had TWICE as many pixels on screen (240i vs. 480i). Majora looked better to my eyes: "smoother" than Ocarina because of the higher resolution.

But if it will make you feel better:

I thought Ocarina of Time was much, much more fun than it's "more advanced" counterparts Wind Waker or Starfox Adventures (a zeldalike clone). AGAIN: Because even though Ocarina did not look as good as the Gamecube games, Ocarina's gameplay was superior.


What's being disputed is that graphics ARE important, and technology even more so, as it DOES directly affect gameplay.
Click to expand...

I still play old games from the 1970s and 80s so I'm probably the last person you should ask. I consider graphics a nonissue as long as the game is fun. :bouncy:

Also I'm not a big fan of realism. I play games to ESCAPE the real world and that's why I hated Driver 4 because it was tooooo realistic (frustrating traffic jams). I prefer non-realistic games like Lego Star Wars or Mario Sunshine or DDR.

So to summarize:
Ocarina >>>> Wind Waker or Starfox Adventures
even though OOT has older, inferior graphics
because OOT had superior gameplay.
 
You know, Wind Waker beat OOT both in term of gameplay and graphic. Ok, maybe they are both tie in gameplay department, but Wind Waker is in no way have inferior game play compare to OOT. Now if you hate how the game work with all the ocean in the map and got to travel by boat, that is a completely different story.
 
The foundational problem with this entire argument (spread over however many threads its been) is that "good graphics" are totally subjective.

I'm a sucker for quality sprite artwork. I'd have much preferred Sonic Rush and NSMB on the DS to use sprites like their 8 and 16bit counterparts. I think the stylings of Yoshi's Island on the SNES blow away 95% of what is considered "good" graphically.

It's all about balance and personal preference. I know some people would love to just push their gaming resolutions to the max at all costs. For me, I'd take 480p over 1080p if it meant the framerate jumped up (assuming 1080p suffered in the framerate department).

If graphics are a detriment, I take notice and sometimes it's game-breaking. (For all of those labeling me as a Nintendo fanboy, listen up!) I can't play Ocarina of Time due in large part to its rather poor frame-rate and muddy textures (where am I supposed to go? I can't see...). Shadow of the Colossus, while a fantastic game, was really hampered by the fact that its framerate seemed to jump all over the place an max out at about 25.

If graphics are really good, I tend to notice briefly. Ninja Gaiden on Xbox had a lot of eyecandy that was fun to look at for a while. There seems to be a common misconception that Twilight Princess looks like crap around here. I'll tell you, there's moments in that game thus far that have taken my breath away, visually. But in both of those cases, when I'm into the game, I hardly notice the oohs and ahhs because I'm so wrapped up in taking out a room full of machine gun soldiers or am on a quest to save the world.

The best graphics are the ones that pull you in during those crucial opening moments of a game when you're deciding whether you're going to play it or not, and then stay the heck out of your way while you delve into the rest of the game.
 
[quote name='Xellos2099']You know, Wind Waker beat OOT both in term of gameplay and graphic. ....Now if you hate how the game work with all the ocean...[/quote]

Actually I hate the lack of dungeons (what were there? 3?), and the 10+ hour triforce fetching used to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the game with p-a-d-d-i-n-g. I also hated the lame story (what story?) and the lame bosses and the one-quarter damage per hit (it should have been one-half) which made me feel like a toddler (too easy). The only think I liked about WW was the cel-shading.

I sold Wind Waker second week after it was released.

Ocarina of Time, despite it's lo-res 240i, despite its jaggy pixels, despite its blur, is the best Nintendo game of the 3D era. (aside- I've not played TP yet). Ocarina of Time is the perfect example of where graphics don't matter if you have a masterpiece of gameplay. Ocarina also had an excellent story about misery & despair & legendary heroes traveling across time to save their world. MASTERpiece.

I guess that's why I sold my Gamecube but kept my "graphically challenged" N64.
So I could keep playing Ocarina, Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, and other masterpieces.
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']It had TWICE as many pixels on screen (240i vs. 480i). Majora looked better to my eyes: "smoother" than Ocarina because of the higher resolution.[/quote]

I can't find anything that said it ran at 640x480, or a higher resolution than it's predecessor (and it didn't look it). And 640x480 is four times the resolution of 320x240...but all this is completely missing the point.

But if it will make you feel better:

I thought Ocarina of Time was much, much more fun than it's "more advanced" counterparts Wind Waker or Starfox Adventures (a zeldalike clone). AGAIN: Because even though Ocarina did not look as good as the Gamecube games, Ocarina's gameplay was superior.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but this is totally missing the point. ZELDA 5 with better graphics would have been more fun, more immersive. This isn't an either/or situation.
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']
Ocarina of Time, despite it's lo-res 240i, despite its jaggy pixels, despite its blur, is the best Nintendo game of the 3D era. (aside- I've not played TP yet). Ocarina of Time is the perfect example of where graphics don't matter if you have a masterpiece of gameplay. [/QUOTE]

You're proving my point if anything. That game wouldn't have been possible on systems prior to that.

And remember, it's just personal preference about which Zelda games you like best. Like some others on here, I like Wind Waker better, and part of that is graphics, but also gameplay (and like I said I liked Starfox Adventures and Beyond Good and Evil better than both of those, and I really prefer huge open ended RPGs better than all of those)
 
[quote name='Puppy']I can't find anything that said Majora ran at 640x480, or a higher resolution than Ocarina.

And 640x480 is four times the resolution of 320x240...[/quote]
Ocarina == 640x240
Majora == 640x480 *twice* the resolution, not four times.

All the N64 games used 240i. Only Majora, Perfect Dark, and a few others used 480i and most required the use of memory expansion to achieve it. SOURCE: wikipedia.com


ZELDA 5 with better graphics would have been more fun, more immersive.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. (1) More resources devoted to Artists == management has to cut/layoff some of the programmers TO SAVE MONEY == the game might look better but play worse (as happened with Wind Sucker). The World of Business is not as simple as you make it out to be. Everything is a trade-off.

(2) More is not always better. The upgraded Mario 64x4 has better graphics, true, but is nowhere near as fun as the original. The same argument is true with the upgraded Conkur Xbox not being as fun as the original. They upgraded the graphics (good), but they changed & ruined the gameplay (bad). RESULT: I'd rather play the older versions.



Ocarina of Time, despite it's lo-res 240i, despite its jaggy pixels, despite its blur, is the best Nintendo game of the 3D era. (aside- I've not played TP yet). Ocarina of Time is the perfect example of where graphics don't matter if you have a masterpiece of gameplay. Ocarina also had an excellent story about misery & despair & legendary heroes traveling across time to save their world. MASTERpiece.

- I guess that's why I sold my Gamecube but kept my "graphically challenged" N64.
- So I could keep playing Ocarina, Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, and other masterpieces.
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']It had TWICE as many pixels on screen (240i vs. 480i). Majora looked better to my eyes: "smoother" than Ocarina because of the higher resolution.[/quote]

Source? I really doubt this. I have both and they look exactly the same apart form the artwork. They even re-use models and textures which look exactly the same.

In any case as it was said in the first page : graphics take a back seat to gameplay but they can impede or help gameplay. Can you play an epic RPG on the scale of Oblivion or TP with Atari graphics? I think not. The graphics provide a base for the gameplay.
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']Ocarina == 640x240
Majora == 640x480 *twice* the resolution, not four times.

All the N64 games used 240i. Only Majora, Perfect Dark, and a few others used 480i and most required the use of memory expansion to achieve it. SOURCE: wikipedia.com[/quote]

Wikipedia dosen't say anything about the resolution in either of the articles I checked. Nor do any reviews. It's EXTREMLY doubtful Majora's Mask runs at 640x480, or Zelda 5 at 640x240, given that no reviews mention it (and either would have been a huge deal), and it didn't look it.

Not necessarily. (1) More resources devoted to Artists == management has to cut/layoff some of the programmers TO SAVE MONEY == the game might look better but play worse (as happened with Wind Sucker). The World of Business is not as simple as you make it out to be. Everything is a trade-off.
Click to expand...

This is stretching it pretty thin. Since we're talking about better hardware, achieving better graphics-or the same graphics-will require LESS artists and programmers, not more. This could be true when comparing two games on the same platform, but that's not what we're talking about, and regardless I can't think of even a single example of a good game that seems in any way compromised by having good graphics.

Also you continue to act like it's fact that Zelda 5 is better than Wind Waker. That's your opinion, and several people on this thread prefer Wind Waker.

(2) More is not always better. The upgraded Mario 64x4 has better graphics, true, but is nowhere near as fun as the original.
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about the DS remake? Again, your opinion. Other than the lack of an analog stick, I preferred the remake, though of course it didn't have the kind of impact the original did.
 
Look. I have my opinion. Why don't you just respect it? Why do you insist that I change it to say "Wind Waker is a better game than Ocarina"??? I don't agree with that statement; why are you trying to force me to say it? Grrr.


The same argument is true with the upgraded Conkur Xbox not being as fun as the original. They upgraded the graphics (good), but they changed & ruined the gameplay (bad). RESULT: I'd rather play the older version even with N64 graphics.[ Gameplay is more important than the woman's cup size..... er, big graphics.



Second, almost all the classic games like Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Smash Brothers use LO-resolution of 640x240. The number of games that uses high-resolution 640x480 can be counted on one hand. As for sources, here: "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is the second game on the system to require the use of the ~Expansion Pak accessory for high-resolution graphics." http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:The%20Legend%20of%20Zelda%3A%20Majora%27s%20Mask%20Nintendo%2064:1951005285:page=description;_ylt=AsTljvXSQTTJ7iMhqRIrqGFOUYUD;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

" require the use of the Expansion Pak for high-resolution" http://www.allgame.com/cg/agg.dll?p=agg&sql=1:23602

And on.

And on.

I pulled up several dozen articles saing that Majora uses the old Ocarina engine, but boosted from lo-resolution (240i) to high-resolution mode (480i). BTW: I'm talking the Nintendo 64 here- not the Cube ports. The N64 used 240i for almost all its games.
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']Look. I have my opinion. Why don't you just respect it? Why do you insist that I change it to say "Wind Waker is a better game than Ocarina"??? I don't agree with that statement; why are you trying to force me to say it? Grrr.[/quote]

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? I never said or implied anything of the sort.


The same argument is true with the upgraded Conkur Xbox not being as fun as the original. They upgraded the graphics (good), but they changed & ruined the gameplay (bad). RESULT: I'd rather play the older version even with N64 graphics.[ Gameplay is more important than the woman's cup size..... er, big graphics.
Click to expand...

You're continuing to totally miss the point. Graphics ENHANCE gameplay. If you're comparing a worse game to a better game, then no, graphics aren't going to help, at least not much. That's not the issue.



Second, almost all the classic games like Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Smash Brothers use LO-resolution of 640x240.
Click to expand...


I doubt any of those games run at 640x240. They're probably all 320x240, or around there.

The number of games that uses high-resolution 640x480 can be counted on one hand. As for sources, here:
Click to expand...
"The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is the second game on the system to require the use of the ~Expansion Pak accessory for high-resolution graphics."
Click to expand...

IGN, Gamespot, Wikipedia, and our own eyes are telling us that's not true. That's some generic description for the memory expansion, not what it actually does for that game.
 
Surely you will acknowledge that Perfect Dark is 640x480 hi-resolution? Or are you in denial about that too?

[quote name='Puppy']
The upgraded Conkurs Bad Fur Day (xbox) is not as fun as the original (n64). They upgraded the graphics (good), but they changed & ruined the gameplay (bad). RESULT: Even though the two games are technically the same game, I'd rather play the older version even with N64 graphics, because it plays better.
Click to expand...
If you're comparing a worse game to a better game, then no, graphics aren't going to help, at least not much. [/quote]

It IS the same game! (albeit a different system). (sigh) I'm done. No point talking to some who can't hear.
 
I think SNK set the standard for good graphics. I wish all games looked like this:

maibc.gif
 
[quote name='fred_h_haddad']Surely you will acknowledge that Perfect Dark is 640x480 hi-resolution? Or are you in denial about that too?[/quote]

I'm not in denial about anything, you are.

You haven't posted any proof that that Majora's Mask runs at 640x480-and we can tell with our own eyes it doesn't.


It IS the same game! (albeit a different system). (sigh) I'm done. No point talking to some who can't hear.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not explaining this right or something, but you're just not getting this. Those AREN'T the same game-I mean you get done saying "it doesn't play as well" and then say "but it's the same game!" Well no, obviously it's not or it would play as well. If it WERE the same game but one version had better graphics, no one would pick the version with inferior graphics, everything else being equal.
 
Anyone who says graphics don't matter really means graphics isn't the only thing that matters.

If graphics didn't matter then no advancements would have been made in consoles in the last 30 years. Graphics can allow for awesome variety in gameplay. Look at Metal Gear on the NES and Metal Gear Solid for the PS One.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top